Digital BW, The Print

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "A. Huntley" <leicam6@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 5:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Digital, film, scanning comparisons


>
> Martin writes:
>
(snip earlier)
>
> I almost moved to 11x14 after seeing first-hand some of Brett Weston's ULF
> (Ultra Large Format) contact prints and when RH Philips was making their
> "flyweight" camera in this size. But, even with the lighter weight of the
> Philips camera you're still looking at quite a mass of stuff to move
about!
> I toyed briefly with enlarging my 8x10 negs; I bought an Aristo 12x12
> coldlight, fashioned a homemade neg holder that fit on the back of my
> camera, built a base for holding everything together, and used my 300mm
> G-Claron lens as an enlarging lens (ala AA.) I bought a wall mount metal
> "easel" with magnets from Wisner. It all worked pretty well though perfect
> alignment was nearly impossible! However, these large film formats provide
> quite a bit of "fudge factor" for these things.

That is an incredible effort!

> I almost laugh now because
> when Zone VI introduced their 8x10 enlarger I considered it...$3K to $4K
> depending on the enlarging lens chosen. Considering what I've spent on
> digital, now, that would have been an absolute bargin! <G>

I know! I have spent way more on digital than I ever considered reasonable
for my wet darkroom.

> I bet the Howtek
> scans are really nice. I've only ever used my Epson Expression 1680 for LF
> because film scanners for this size are way outta reach for me; though
deals
> can probably be found on eBay. I can't imagine the sheer processing power
> and memory requirements to handle a 4000 dpi 8x10 scan. My 1600 dpi 16-bit
> gray scans are large enough!

My 16-bit grayscale, 4000 dpi scans of 4x5 negs run 600+ MB. Some 16-bit RGB
scans top 1.8GB. So 8x10 would hit 2.4GB and 7.2GB! Actually even 600MB is
too much to work with comfortably. I did some test printing and printed the
same file at 13x19 from the original 4000 dpi scan and then again from the
same file down sampled to 2400 dpi. I could not see any difference in a
print this size at all so I now just down sample right away. Even so by the
time I have an 8-bit grayscale PS file with layers the size creeps back up
to 300 to 400 MB.

If I was scanning from 8x10 I suspect I would have to scan at 2000 dpi to
keep file sizes down to something I could even open. Further downsampling
would probably be necessary to have a managable working file. At 1600 dpi
you probably are at the limit current computers and PS can comfortably
swallow. I think that you would still be amazed at the difference in quality
of a 1600 dpi scan from a drum scanner vs. the flatbed. The cost is probably
along the lines of the Zone VI enlarger. <G>
>
> > With digital printing in mind I think the real advantage of the 8x10 may
> > simple be that it is much, much easier to compose on a bright 8x10
ground
> > glass than the wimpy little 4x5 glass. My current thought, that I have
not
> > acted on, is to move up from 4x5 to 5x7. Two sheets should easily wet
> mount
> > on the Howtek and the increase in camera size and weight would not be as
> > great as going up to 8x10. B&H is charging about $70 for 50 sheets of
> TriX,
> > about half of the 8x10 price. I like the proportions better too.
>
> The 8x10 groundglass is like a TV screen! After using it for so many years
I
> can hardly see my 4x5! <G> I think you might like the 5x7. I, personally,
> seem to be moving away from the squattier frames presented by 4x5, 8x10,
> etc. Seems more and more I prefer the elongated formats of 35mm, 6x9, etc.
> I've often thought of the 5x7 myself because the weight increase over 4x5
is
> negligible and the surface area of the film is so much greater...somewhat
> like comparing 6x4.5 to 6x7. 5x7 contacts are jewel-like and any higher
end
> flatbed scanner would handle these nicely. One of these days I'm going to
> FTP a couple 8x10 image files to West Coast Imaging and see what a large
> Piezo print looks like.

When you do, give us some feedback on the experience. I would be very
interested.
>
> > In all honesty though I have done most of my work in the last few years
> with
> > the Pentax 67.
>
> I've got a nice Pentax 67 system, too. Great camera. However, I always
seem
> to come back to weight vs. quality. If I'm going to lug the Pentax outfit,
I
> may as well take the 4x5. Besides...my Toho 4x5 is about half the weight
of
> the 67 body alone!

I agree! Thing weighs a ton but when I bought my system in the early 90's it
was an incredible bargain in that format. If it wasn't for the cost I would
trade for the Mamiya at this point. The 67 just offers speed and the
possibilty of hand held shots. It works out better when I am traveling with
people who don't have the patience to wait while you do a view camera shot.

Martin